Tons Of YouTube Users Putting Up Videos In Protest To S.978

from the good-for-them dept

We've been talking a lot about Senate bill S.978, from Senators Amy Klobuchar, John Cornyn and Christopher Coons, which would adjust the criminal copyright statutes to make some forms of linking/embedding/streaming a felony for which people could face 5 years in jail. As we've noted from the beginning, the really scary part is the ignorance of people supporting this bill, in ignoring how it could make tons of people liable. They insist that there's no problem here because (a) the bill requires the streams/embeds to be for commercial purposes and (b) because the "value" has to be greater than $2,500. What they ignore (despite plenty of people pointing it out) is that it's not hard for people to show that something is done for commercial purposes. If you have ads on your site, even if they make you pennies, you're "making money." And the "value" of the work can easily be estimated or exaggerated at over $2,500. Again, no one is claiming that the feds are suddenly going to go after your average YouTube embedder, but the problem with this change to the law is that it could be used that way. Federal prosecutors have made use of ambiguous or questionable laws like this in the past, such as attempts to misuse the CFAA bill, which is designed for those who break into computer systems, against people like Lori Drew who was mean to a teenager on MySpace.

We've noted that the bill is getting more attention of late, and it appears that the YouTube community has awakened to the problems with it. If you now do a YouTube search on s978, there are a rapidly growing number of results, with plenty of people speaking out against the bill, in part due to claims and some videos from YouTubers related to worries from video gamers.

Tragically, going through a bunch of the videos... nearly all of them gets the facts wrong in some manner (sometimes getting nearly all the details wrong). I worry about that, because it allows politicians to brush aside the very real concerns about the unintended consequences of the bill. Also, some of the incorrect statements seem to lead to people saying that the bill won't pass because "something that stupid can't pass." And, indeed, no bill is going to pass that will force all these people to take their videos down or to fine them for old videos as some have suggested. The risk is in how the bill could be used by federal prosecutors to go after people embedding certain videos, and then using the letter of the law (though clearly not the spirit) to go after people.

It's good to see so many people speaking out, but it would be better if they spoke factually about the bill, rather than running with some of the wilder assumptions that people seem to be making.

DarkSeidPhil, who you previously linked to in the last video, has put up a second video. Link

Further, here is Keits, who is basically a video game lawyer. David's second response here should have a lot of people looking at the flaws of the bill in relation to any entertainment medium overall. There is no doubt with so many people against the bill, it might not pass without a very heavy revision. I for one, hope that this gained attention of a sector that was never in the process before can actually help to influence this bill for the better.

"...scary part is ... ignoring how it could make tons of people liable."

Once again Mike, you evidence amazing credulity to write that the politicians are merely ignorant and this isn't the intended effect. I keep telling you people, politicians and gov't are READY to escalate indefinitely. Most here refuse to consider the growing police state -- even seem to believe the gov't is benign, misguided at most, "conservatives" and neo-cons are the ones who worship the state, not the few remaining "leftists" -- but when you're swooped up /criminally/ for file-sharing, it'll be too late. Just look at "the war on drugs"; gov't doesn't care if it ruins lives to prosecute for trivial "crimes", that just empowers the gov't.

Re: "...scary part is ... ignoring how it could make tons of people liable."

I'd better elaborate, sometimes leave premises and weighting out:

Mike's writing is equivocal. First he excuses Senators as merely "ignorant", then he goes on to put ambiguity all into one sentence:
"Again, no one is claiming that the feds are suddenly going to go after your average YouTube embedder, but the problem with this change to the law is that it could be used that way."

Now I'M claiming "that the feds are suddenly going to go after your average YouTube embedder", AND Mike says "it could be used that way", BUT then Mike allays fears: "no bill is going to pass that will force all these people to take their videos down or to fine them for old videos as some have suggested" -- so that's all right then! Go back to sleep!

Mike further goes on to undercut his allies: "it would be better if they spoke factually about the bill, rather than running with some of the wilder assumptions". -- So I just plain don't know Mike's position here. Once I started parsing what Mike writes with a bit of doubt, he looks to be a weak champion at best, distancing himself from those whom he claims don't deal in facts, extremists who make "wilder assumptions" and so on.

Un-ambiguize your writing, Mike. You skipped the "effecive writng" course, I guess. If you're writing a polemic, DON'T PULL YOUR PUNCHES. You don't look "reasonable" -- and your opponents with the State on their side are NOT reasonable, they're THUGS -- so you just look just WIMPY.

Re:

How many misdemeanor prosecutions have there been under the existing provision? Zero, as far as I'm aware. So why then, Chicken Little, will the sky be falling after the bill passes?

Yes, as far as I can tell the answer is zero as well. Which, at the very least should raise questions about why it should be boosted to felony status, right? I mean, that seems to indicate that there's no need to have it be a felony.

But, the reason why I'm concerned is you know as well as I do that the fear of abuse is the problem. And the feds ability to abuse felony charges (again, look at CFAA) is much stronger than using misdemeanor charges. It hasn't been used in an abusive manner so far, because why bother with misdemeanor charges. If it's a felony, the risk is much higher.

Perhaps you should lead by example.

I do. I keep asking you supporters of this bill to prove me wrong, and you don't. Last time around I even got one of you to admit that I was right... followed by a "but of course it won't be used this way."

I know that you're paid to support this bill, so you'll always say that. But some of us have seen how the feds abuse similar legislation, and we worry about any legislation that would potentially turn lots and lots of people into felons for merely linking/embedding.

Again, there are good reasons why public performance wasn't put into that section of the bill originally, because it shouldn't be considered a felony issue.

Re: Re:

Overall problems? The bill is aimed at those who intentionally and knowingly break the law for commercial gain. What's wrong with holding such people liable for the crimes they intended to commit? You focus way too much on the possibility of unintended consequences, presumably for the purpose of getting people to look past what's actually intended. I'm surprised you're not trying to argue that this bill will break the internet or violate the Constitution. The best you can do is say that some users won't be affected, but they could be affected. That's not a convincing argument. How many people that should be affected will be affected? Probably not enough. The law is cracking down on your pirate buddies. It's amusing to watch you wiggle.

Re: Re:

Textbook FUD. It could be abused, so it should be feared at all costs. I imagine you'll use this argument about any bill aimed at your pirate friends. Funny how a person who claims to think "piracy is not OK" also doesn't think that any reaction to piracy other than giving in is OK.

Re: Re: Re:

"The bill is aimed at those who intentionally and knowingly break the law for commercial gain. "

This part right here? That's the stickler part that is so broad and undefined as to net the unintended consequences such as the gamers that love to freely advertise video games for a little extra money on the side OR for free.

"What's wrong with holding such people liable for the crimes they intended to commit?"

Such as the takedowns that occurred a year ago? Here's a better question, what crime did they commit that allowed their domain to be taken under dubious means? And why have none of them, save Rojadirecta been given a court date?

Oh, I'm sorry, we get to extradite a UK "criminal" for doing something that's legal in his country. Great due process.

"I'm surprised you're not trying to argue that this bill will break the internet or violate the Constitution."

Already been argued. And it's getting more and more evident by the minute.

" The law is cracking down on your pirate buddies."

The law is making normal people's behavior criminal for nothing more than doing what comes natural on the internet. Sharing an experience with others. So glad of you to notice that instead of the misaimed piracy motif. /s

Re:

Why are you so scared to use a real name, or even a fake name, when posting to this blog? I realize I'm being some what hypocritical because I'm using a "fake" name... but I use the same "fake" name every time so people know who they are talking too.... Taking "pot shots" from the bleachers is just rude, and really doesn't do much for your credibility....especially for those who are willing to give honest consideration (which most here will do, given half a chance)to your arguments..

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Can this get any worse?

A work is still being copied, except with “streaming”, a user can start watching or listening before the entire work is finished copying, and generally, the copy isn’t permanently stored where it can easily be accessed later.

Yes, the copy is stored on Youtube/Justin.tv's server to be watched again. How about live streaming? Does this follow that experience as well?

"Some copyright owners are particularly harmed by streaming: sports events are nearly always streamed since much of the experience comes from watching the event live."

Oh FFS! We'll use the UFC for an example since they're the biggest in aggressively enforcing copyrights:

1) Not everyone can afford the live stream at the price that they set ($59.99 for a two hour show on VoD or HBO, etc)

2) There's other markets where people will watch the fight or put their money to see a fight.

3) The UFC is HUGE in sports bars and arenas and they've gone for that crowd with secret investigations. Basically, they want everyone to pay up to watch a fight which is beyond stupid!

Key thing here, out of the $4 million+ dollars that they've made in the last year, one stream is not harming them when they've had other markets fulfilled!

4) I cannot BEGIN to tell you how many international citizens want to watch this or the NBA but can't because of either geolocation or other artificial stupidity (not scarcity) on the parts of copyright holders.

"Criminal copyright infringement, however, requires intent. The infringement must be “willful.” Courts have interpreted this to mean an “intentional violation of a known legal duty.” In other words, in a criminal copyright trial, the government must prove a “bad purpose” or “evil motive” rather than merely an “intent to copy and not to infringe."

How in the blue bloody hell is the government going to do this when the UK, and every other country save Russia and its raids has failed? Maybe they can go to Spain for pointers...

" Bad-faith claims or outright lying won’t save a willful infringer. Neither will disagreement over the validity of copyright law itself"

This sentence right here. Everything hinges on understanding exactly what it says. You can bring a bad faith claim or lie to the court as a copyright holder and so long as you have the money and the government behind you and still be censored. Bravo.

"The proposed bill establishes two separate measures of value: either 10 or more performances within 180 days where the total retail value (or total economic value to the infringer or copyright owner) exceeds $2,500 or where the total fair market value of licenses to offer performances would exceed $5,000."

Bullshit. Copyright holders do pull numbers out of their ass and would charge the maximum value they could so long as there's no penalty for doing so. This is still an arbitrary amount since the price of DVDs drop over time, where I'm now seeing some new DVDs coming out for $14 instead of the $20 price that is the norm. And what if someone "stole" a Netflix movie and streamed it themselves? Does this mean the value of it goes to $10?

And his next paragraph explains EXACTLY why a lot of gamers are upset. Look at DSP's videos. He has over 5,000 on one YT account! By all standards, he bought the game for $30 - $60. Why can't he stream it? Why can't someone view a movie online and see if it's worth it? Or better yet, what happens if a site has a unique series along with TV shows? What are you going to do then? Shut the site down because they have other copyrighted material?

Why not find a way to license material WITHOUT suing first?

"It is designed to apply only to outright pirates who profit off the streaming of unauthorized copyrighted works, and the language reflects this design."

And that's just it:

1) The "pirates" are consuming media in other areas.
2) Just because there's an ad banner does not mean that streaming should be criminalized
3) The case of the UK admin disagrees severely with pirates supposedly "profiting" from this
4) The language continues to be overbroad even with Terry Hart's explanation, criminalizing normal behavior on the internet.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

More info on the UFC:

I've heard it said by a number of people that even though they don't watch the fight live, they'll still buy the T-shirts, the DVDs, and other marketing products of the UFC since they won't pay for the live show.

However, if the UFC were to stop everyone from streaming the event, they lose a lot more marketing revenue, since interest would wane severely. Perhaps this short sighted bill will make them see that their events do a lot for their bottom line by allowing more people to see the event than just through expensive pay per views.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The bill is aimed at those who intentionally and knowingly break the law for commercial gain. "

This part right here? That's the stickler part that is so broad and undefined as to net the unintended consequences such as the gamers that love to freely advertise video games for a little extra money on the side OR for free.

The 10 instances and $2500 threshold has to do with the market value of the stream. It has nothing to do with a site that runs ads that are unrelated to the infringement.

"What's wrong with holding such people liable for the crimes they intended to commit?"

Such as the takedowns that occurred a year ago? Here's a better question, what crime did they commit that allowed their domain to be taken under dubious means? And why have none of them, save Rojadirecta been given a court date?

Way to move the goalpost. Any of the seized websites like Rojadirect are free to file as Rojadirect has done. You aren't suggesting that any have been denied a hearing are you?

Oh, I'm sorry, we get to extradite a UK "criminal" for doing something that's legal in his country. Great due process.

Apparently the Justice Dept disagrees with you and the matter is being resolved. As to wheter or not it's legal in the UK, that is not a settled issue.

"I'm surprised you're not trying to argue that this bill will break the internet or violate the Constitution."

Already been argued. And it's getting more and more evident by the minute.

So you contend that the streaming bill also breaks the internet? Really. How is the upgrading of a crime from a misdemeanor to a felony accomplish that? Shouldn't the internet be already broken since it's currently a crime? Where are all of the constitutional challenges to this law that has been on the books for years? Hell, Public Knowledge and CDT haven't even come out against the bill. Where's Wyden?

"The law is cracking down on your pirate buddies."

The law is making normal people's behavior criminal for nothing more than doing what comes natural on the internet. Sharing an experience with others. So glad of you to notice that instead of the misaimed piracy motif. /s

The bill simply upgrades the conduct from a misdemeanor to a felony. The behavior is already criminal. And it's NOT sharing an experience, it's personally profiting or obtaining a commercial advantage numerous times at a $2500 threshold. Maybe you should heed Masnick's admonition:

"It's good to see so many people speaking out, but it would be better if they spoke factually about the bill, rather than running with some of the wilder assumptions that people seem to be making."

Re: Getting the facts straight

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"The 10 instances and $2500 threshold has to do with the market value of the stream. It has nothing to do with a site that runs ads that are unrelated to the infringement. "

I believe we're both well aware that this is not the case. We can go on all day about how the market value is fixed by copyright holders, not consumers. Basically, this is an arbitrary value based on the revenue that a website takes in, be it advertisements or donations. The government doesn't seem to care which one, as evidenced by Brian McCarthy's arrest.

"Way to move the goalpost. Any of the seized websites like Rojadirect are free to file as Rojadirect has done. You aren't suggesting that any have been denied a hearing are you?"

They have. No sooner than ICE takes their domain than the case was closed in the first takedowns. Factor in that the government has been stalling on these cases and you have a lot of prior restraint. But it's not moving the goalposts. What crime did they commit and become convicted of that allows their domain to be seized? Read that again. Conviction is the key word here. And when has their case been allowed for any of the domain seizures, since all of this is linked to either seizing domains or holding people liable for criminal streaming. There's no huge difference. It's supposed to be a deterrent factor, is it not? But to what end?

"Apparently the Justice Dept disagrees with you and the matter is being resolved. As to wheter or not it's legal in the UK, that is not a settled issue."

"So you contend that the streaming bill also breaks the internet? Really. How is the upgrading of a crime from a misdemeanor to a felony accomplish that? Shouldn't the internet be already broken since it's currently a crime? Where are all of the constitutional challenges to this law that has been on the books for years? Hell, Public Knowledge and CDT haven't even come out against the bill. Where's Wyden? "

Felonizing a crime is screwing any job potentials of supposed criminals for their online behavior. Hell, the gamers are already mocking this law with statements like this:

In jail:

C1: Hey How'd You Get In

C2:Raped A Child And Killed A Family You?

C1:I Played MarioKart And Put It On The Internet

The proposed punishments don't fit the crime with harsher jail penalties, when the US already has the most severe punishments, and the highest number of arrests than the world combined. Why exacerbate this problem with jail terms, which has people even more concerned?

"The behavior is already criminal. "

Bullshit, as evidenced by the outcry and the outpouring of videos against S.978. The bill is too broad.

" it's personally profiting or obtaining a commercial advantage numerous times at a $2500 threshold."

So you don't listen to the videos where they are explaining in detail what their concerns are, instead criminalizing them in an effort to keep your distance. Good to know. So I guess Youtube's revenue sharing will have to be readjusted along with their admobile or any number of advertisements that run on websites since those are supposedly commercially viable targets through this legislation along with PIPA.

Re: Re: "...scary part is ... ignoring how it could make tons of people liable."

I am more with this commenter on how this legislation will be used. The idea is to criminalize everyday behavior to the point that every single citizen will in some way be a "criminal". Then if a citizen steps out of line, annoys the right person, or otherwise exercises their rights to free speech (or whatever passes for it these days), the state has a ready made excuse to swoop down and silence, threaten, or bully them.

Re: Re: "...scary part is ... ignoring how it could make tons of people liable."

Actually, Masnick is doing a pretty fair job given the weak facts on his side of the argument. And he is also right about extremism. If your rhetoric makes you look like a raving douchebag, it's far easier to dismiss any substantive points. That's why Masnick takes pains to express that he is not in favor of piracy, even though his every post attacks anything reasonable that might actually make piracy more difficult. He wants (and needs) to appear reasonable in order to be relevant.

You on the other hand seem not to care if you're dismissed as being nuttier than squirrel shit. Though I disagree with Masnick on much, he's disciplined enough not to surrender to his inner zealot at the expense of having his view heard, however fleetingly.

Above poster hits it right on the head re: sports streams

Sports streams are of the biggest concern to me regarding this bill. What many large businesses do not seem to understand is that people only stream live sporting events if they have no way to watch it otherwise. In cases of PPV (such as UFC) I don't have sympathy because people just want to avoid paying for the event.

However, a huge key in the streaming issue is geolocation. I happen to be an American who enjoys football (soccer). I support Wigan Athletic, but the only available service to me to watch the English Premier League is via Fox Soccer Channel. When FSC has declined the option to show Wigan Athletic's match (instead showing 2 other games in the league), why does it make sense for me to be at fault for finding a stream of the match that is available to someone else and they wish to share?

Perhaps that person is terms of service at fault with their ISP or cable provider, but at the same time, I am still being displayed this person's ads, so I'm not immune to the sales pitch the company is putting on during the breaks. The point is, if there were ANY legitimate way for me to gain access to coverage of a Wigan Athletic televised match, I would do it. But since there is not, and I go to stream, suddenly this is criminal? Situations such as these are proof positive that the powers that be are completely out of touch with the opportunities and doors the Internet has opened for communication and social interaction.

By no means am I, nor the streamer to any meaningful extent, engaging in true commercial activities (Donations to provide a service may "technically" be commercial, but don't think for a second that these stream websites are allowing their owners to retire early by any stretch. Typically they're just looking to cover hosting cost as a thank you from the users.

Do they get exactly what they are doing if they pass that bill? It's basically like saying, "OH MY GOSH A 2 YEAR OLD SANG A LADY GAGA SONG FOR A WHOLE MINUTE! LET'S LOCK HER UP!"

yeah I know that's a little dramatic considering the "10 warnings" they keep trying to explain. But why is the Senate worrying about something like this? They should be worried about getting the economy back together instead of penalizing what could be thousand, more so hundreds of thousands of people on youtube. I would get it if people were posting up say an entire movie or T.V show up, or an entire song with lyrics and a picture. But they worded it so they could do more than what they are intending. Unless it's intentional...

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re:

The law will be enforced onto anyone the law wants to, it will be selective because it can't be enforced in mass because of costs.

But you can bet the law enforcement agents will try their best to make examples out of people and probably fail like every other enforcement initiative is just this time people will get angry at the government now too.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

They have. No sooner than ICE takes their domain than the case was closed in the first takedowns. Factor in that the government has been stalling on these cases and you have a lot of prior restraint.

Jay, you go to court (like Rojadirecta) file your case and the court begins the process. All of these websites enjoy the same protections under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as any other civil litigant.

But it's not moving the goalposts. What crime did they commit and become convicted of that allows their domain to be seized? Read that again. Conviction is the key word here.

Again, seizure of the websites is allowed under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The seizure of property is analogous to the arrest of a person. You don't need to be convicted in order to be arrested.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

$2500 threshold LoL
What is the fee for licesing something for streaming?
Only God knows what the fees are because no one will talk to normal people unless they contact them with a lawyer, so basically the duches can claim any value heck they could compound the fees using the streaming fee, the synch fee and other licenses fees and come up with $10.000 dollars.

Those "limitations" are so low that it makes everyone a criminal is like saying that people driving vehicles above 10 pounds are criminals if they don't get a license to drive those things and when a children using a moppet gets jailed is because he is a criminal for driving and unlicensed vehicle but people say they won't affect law abiding citizens.

And we all know law enforcement never abuse any laws, no it doesn't happen, ICE doesn't abuse it the TSA don't abuse it, cops beating people on the streets never happen, people threatening others does not happen, yah right.

Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Abolition

Re: AGAINST

Everyone's against the bill, so, hopefully the government will react to that.

According to maplight.org the following groups have posted their opposition to S. 978:

Electronic Frontier Foundation
U.S.W.G.O.
Demand Progress

Maplight categorizes EFF as an advocacy group but either USWGO or Demand Progress under the category as an anti-government/militia group (crazies).

That's it. Larry, Curly and Moe. No CDT, no Public Knowledge no group of any real substance other than EFF and this is not one of their major issues. Not only is it untrue that "everyone is against it, but the groups that you'd expect to see oppose it consider it beneath their notice. That should tell you something. I know it speaks volumes to lawmakers.

Re: Re: Re:

The bill is aimed at those who intentionally and knowingly break the law for commercial gain.

And child pornography laws were "aimed" at protecting children from dangerous predators and not threatening kids who take naked pictures of the themselves with felony convictions and sex offender status.

As always, was a law was "aiming for" and what it will be used for are two very different things.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Bullshit, as evidenced by the outcry and the outpouring of videos against S.978. The bill is too broad.

You didn't actually say that did you? You don't seriously dispute the fact that the infringing streaming we've been discussing is currently a misdemeanor?

Then you suggest that the "outpourings of videos against S.978" and the breadth of the bill is further evidence that the streaming behavior is not already criminal?

I understand the need for all of the contortions to curry favor with the Lord High Apologist, but this argument laughably desperate. It's fine to be an obsequious toady, but please stop embarrassing yourself with garbage like this.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You are arrested on charges. For example, driving while intoxicated, public urination, murder. In terms of site seizure, civil procedure requires good faith notice to the site owner. As a practical manner, these guys don't want to be found. They really don't want their day in court. Instead they jsut move their site to Beleize or somewhere.

Re: Re:

Re: Re: AGAINST

Maplight categorizes EFF as an advocacy group but either USWGO or Demand Progress under the category as an anti-government/militia group (crazies).

To tell you the truth USWGO is not really an extremist or anti-government group. USWGO is for the Constitution which our Government has a blatant disregard for since the false flag terrorist attacks of 9/11 done by the CIA and evidence is gathered related to this matter.

Our Government has become our enemy since they along with the Logan Act violating Bilderberg Group leaders has violently overthrown our democracy and republic by turning our Presidents into nothing more then puppets for George Soros and other elitists.

Who's the terrorist? USWGO or the Government?

Our Government has gone into war with it's own citizens and you say that is Just?

I would approve of a Government that kept their word, that they follow the Rule of Law as they are suppose to, and go through the proper channels.

A Government should obey the laws of the land like the rest of us. If the Government breaks the laws then we promise we will break the laws too and not obey civil order.

When will we say enough is enough? When will we resist the tyranny that has befallen our nation?

When will Americans start enforcing the laws against the law breaking Government. Our Government is suppose to set an example yet they have become the very thing they are against, criminals, terrorists and rapists.

I request on here that USWGO get special headlines on techdirt since he interviewed Jim Tucker a great reporter that is being ignored by the lamestream Righthaven filth media that it has become. USWGO is to be an example for the U.S. Government. Brian Hill keeps his word to fight for justice and never settle with Righthaven. He will not betray the American people even though our entire Government has betrayed our people.

Elect Brian Hill of USWGO for President! If Brian were President of the United States he would abolish the TSA, protect security by targeting the true enemies that attacked this country, shut down the United Nations, shut down the Counsel on Foreign Relations, and open diplomatic channels around the world to protect countries sovereignty and keep the peace. Brian wishes to end the lies and psycho agendas our politicians have for us folks.

Who wishes to elect Brian Hill for President? If you vote in 2012 will you vote this guy in?

1. He is autistic and type 1 severe diabetic. He will be able to represent all the disabled people out there that feel oppressed.

2. He is Pro Constitution and non partisan. He wishes to take no side in politics except for what is right and just with the law.

3. He wants to end the suffering of the people by legitimizing research for all cures for all diseases and bar Big Pharma from making influences to halt any cures.

4. He wants to shut down the Federal Reserve if he is President and transfer all monetary policies back to the treasury.

5. He will start abolishing all foreign grants and foreign aid to instead rebuild the broken and debt overflowed United States. He will provide grants to those that will openly criticize any government policy to bring back freedom of the press which has been missing in America. It isn't right that we have to watch foreign news agencies to get the real news that never happens in our media.

6. If he were President he would work directly with the people against the wishes of the Bilderberg Group and other nightmarish groups including Stephens Inc. the very people that created the Righthaven pawns in the legal game of chess. He would allow the people to agree and disagree never to take away their rights to any belief and opinion as they are important to a open and free democracy.

7. In fact if he were president period he would end this tragedy of law and no hope. He would make the courts affordable to the poor so people being forcefully sued won't be forcefully bankrupt by companies like Righthaven.

Elect Brian Hill for President!!!!!

Only Brian can restore this country and bring aid to the helpless in America and protect the weak from the strong bullies.

(B) by inserting after paragraph (1) the
following:
‘‘(2) shall be imprisoned not more than 5 years,
fined in the amount set forth in this title, or both,
if— 6 ‘‘(A) the offense consists of 10 or more
public performances by electronic means, during
any 180-day period, of 1 or more copyrighted
works; and
‘‘(B)(i) the total retail value of the per-
formances, or the total economic value of such
public performances to the infringer or to the
copyright owner, would exceed $2,500; or
‘‘(ii) the total fair market value of licenses
to offer performances of those works would ex-
ceed $5,000;’’; and
(2) in subsection (f), by striking paragraph (2)

and inserting the following:
‘‘(2) the terms ‘reproduction’, ‘distribution’,
and ‘public performance’ refer to the exclusive rights
of a copyright owner under clauses (1), (3), (4), and
(6), respectively of section 106 (relating to exclusive
19 rights in copyrighted works), as limited by sections
107 through 122, of title 17;’’.

(b) AMENDMENT
TO
SECTION 506
OF
TITLE 17.—
Section 506(a) of title 17, United States Code, is amend-
ed—
(1) in paragraph (1)(C), by inserting ‘‘or public
performance’’ after ‘‘distribution’’ the first place it
appears; and

(2) in paragraph (3)—
(A) in subparagraph (A), by inserting ‘‘or
public performance’’ after ‘‘unauthorized dis-

tribution’’; and

(B) in subparagraph (B), by inserting ‘‘or

public performance’’ after ‘‘distribution’’.

The F'ing purpose of the law is to put streaming which falls under public performance, under the criminal offenses because it wasn't before, and people could successfully defend against any criminal claims about it because the law wasn't clear enough.

They also changed slightly the wording making it clear that public performance could be any reproduction(i.e. viewing) or streaming(transmission) of only one or more copyrighted works and saying the copyright holder can say how much he lost without having to prove nothing.

The only thing difficult may be to prove intent, but as seem some judges that worked for the industry are sympathetic enough to make that a low bar to achieve.

Could this open video platforms to liability if they don't take down fast enough any videos?

Also there is the definition of "personal gain" which is mostly a term from fraud legislation and could mean any gain you had financial or not, this could include everyone.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I gave you specific examples in the other thread, which you chose to ignore. I gave you particular names to look up. These people make money above both thresholds mentioned in the bill. And I have zero doubt that they would be prosecuted in the US because they earn enough money from these things.

Re: Re: Re:

As a libertarian (in the true sense, not the American falsehood sense), you're full of shit.

Mike has shown alternative methods. For example, WWE was priced as a PPV at £35 for Summerslam. I won't pay £35 for a one-off showing unless it's going to be a-sucking-mazing and literally blow my socks off.

So I don't watch it at the price point, because the content was overvalued. If someone provides it at a more convenient price point and ability (say, the £10 it originally started at only five years ago) I'd be willing to watch it.

It is not just the price point, but the convenience. Why do you htink iTunes is one of the world's largest music stores?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "...scary part is ... ignoring how it could make tons of people liable."

some have said about extradition if a site streams ok no need. From the BBC site.
Websites hosting pirated material could be blocked in the UK if the US introduces a similar system, according to culture minister Ed Vaizey.
Mr Vaizey struck a bullish note on the subject of copyright during his keynote speech at the Intellect Consumer Electronics conference.

"If people are streaming live football without permission we should look at ways we can stop them," he said. "People have the right to earn money from content they create."

However, he remained tight-lipped on what came out of last week's meeting between UK ISPs and content providers to discuss website blocking.
though why he picked out a sport instead of movies or music i dont know

Re:

Re: Re:

And after the law passes the chicken s...oops littles will come claiming they need more intrusive tools to be able to enforce that crappy law, because you know they need tools to watch what people are streaming to one another to catch the newly created class of criminals that never existed before.

Re: Re: Re:

Whether or not it's "breaking the law" is still open to debate in many quarters. It's not an across the board absolute.

"The law is cracking down on your pirate buddies. It's amusing to watch you wiggle."

A). For the majority, this has nothing to do with "pirates".
B). Clearly you have no understanding in regards to freedom.
C). Clearly you're a tyrant.
D). "Wiggle"? I've surfed around reading comments on sites accused of "harboring pirates" and all I see is a whole lot of dangerous anger and even more attempts by the day to fight back against these infringements on basic human liberty.

Anonymous Cowards like you are fanning the flames of dissent and inciting a cyber war by the very real groups such as "Anonymous" and LulzSec. Saddest thing of all is the innocents getting caught in the cross fire for having so much as a passive interest in all of this.

Seems your shooting yourselves in the foot causes a whole lot more than just "wriggling".

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "...scary part is ... ignoring how it could make tons of people liable."

Do you realize there are costs involved in providing something like this? Even a "little guy/gal" who offers "whatever" on a web site has costs involved. Hosting, domain name, software, etc.

Furthermore, since when did our civil liberties include elected perps stealing from us? The "powers that be" legalize that all the time. Why is that "okay" but enjoying some entertainment and/or sharing (basic tenets of human nature) with others is "criminal"? That's all backwards.

Re: Re: Re: AGAINST

To tell you the truth USWGO is not really an extremist or anti-government group. USWGO is for the Constitution which our Government has a blatant disregard for since the false flag terrorist attacks of 9/11 done by the CIA and evidence is gathered related to this matter.

Hahahahhaha. OK, I guess this settles which group maplight.org was characterizing as anti-government/militia. You know Ben, there are medications that can help you. Until then, make sure to wear your tinfoil hat extra tight.

Re: Re: Re: AGAINST

Ummm, that link is regarding the Protect IP Act (S.968). The list above is opponents to S.978 which is the streaming bill that everyone but you seems to be discussing in this thread. Here, try this: http://www.project-literacy.org/

Re: Re: Re: Re: AGAINST

Quote:

The Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act, S.968, or the PROTECT IP Act, also known as PIPA, would allow the Attorney General to require domain name registries to "suspend operation of, and lock, the domain name" of a website the DoJ determines to be “dedicated to infringing.” Not only would this interference with the Domain Name System (DNS) be ineffective, but also runs contrary to the US government's commitment to advancing a single, global Internet. Non-democratic regimes could seize on the precedent to justify similar measures that would hinder online freedom of expression and repress dissenting voices. This mode of DNS blocking also threatens to make domestic networks and users more vulnerable to cybersecurity attacks and identity theft as users migrate to offshore DNS providers not subject to PIPA's provisions.

Re: Re:

That makes two of us. And probably many of us. Still, I feel this way about it as it is now. IP law is important to protect ARTISTS (not labels or studios) against commercial misuse of their works. However, fair RE-use and non-commercial sharing is completely screwed up in the current laws.

Add to this mix clueless politicians, lobbying, bribery and clueless ordinary ppl and we have a nuke ready to cause mass destruction in so many ways it's even hard to start describing.

Re: Re: Re: Re: AGAINST

Quote:

The Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act, S.968, or the PROTECT IP Act, also known as PIPA, would allow the Attorney General to require domain name registries to "suspend operation of, and lock, the domain name" of a website the DoJ determines to be “dedicated to infringing.” Not only would this interference with the Domain Name System (DNS) be ineffective, but also runs contrary to the US government's commitment to advancing a single, global Internet. Non-democratic regimes could seize on the precedent to justify similar measures that would hinder online freedom of expression and repress dissenting voices. This mode of DNS blocking also threatens to make domestic networks and users more vulnerable to cybersecurity attacks and identity theft as users migrate to offshore DNS providers not subject to PIPA's provisions.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Profit from what stupid?
You can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who actually try to profit from sharing anything, this bill is not going to affect them since those are business savvy already and are in countries that it is allowed or use stealth to operate and it is hard to track this law is about putting the fear of God on little people.

Re: Re: Sigh

Your an idiot. I have read the "IP Act", and as soon as I did, I came up with 10 ways to go around it before I set my coffee down.

Looks like their is a fair chance Mexico may not buy into this crap.. so if i were a pirate, i would get a proxy in Mexico (I'm sure they would love the dollars), and back to pirating I go...... If not Mexico, then I'm sure there will be another....

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It's circular logic to say that the bill is aimed at those who break the law when the bill itself is law.

Sure, it may create new laws to help with the enforcement of existing laws, but the fact that people break existing law is no excuse to make new law. The question is, is the existing law that the new law seeks to help enforce important enough to warrant the social cost of creating these new laws (and not just the cost to the American taxpayer, but the cost to our rights, freedoms, and privacy).

Re: Re: Sigh

s.968 - Protect IP act is another joke, not only people can just bypass that by using other solutions, they can go stealth and make it really hard to look at what is happening even Visa and other credit cards companies don't like it are they free loving pirates too?

Since you're fond of quoting opencongress.org, here's their official summary of the bill:

Official Summary

5/12/2011--Introduced.Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act of 2011 or the PROTECT IP Act of 2011 - Authorizes the Attorney General (AG) or an intellectual property right owner harmed by an Internet site dedicated to infringing activities (ISDIA) to commence an action against:
(1) a registrant of an ISDIA's domain name, or
(2) an owner or operator of an ISDIA accessed through a domain name. Allows the AG to commence actions against such individuals associated with nondomestic domain names (NDN). Permits the AG, if the specified individuals are unable to be found or have no address within a U.S. judicial district, to commence in rem actions (against domain names themselves, in lieu of individuals) against such domain names. Defines ISDIA as a site that:
(1) has no significant use other than engaging in or facilitating copyright infringement, circumventing technology controlling access to copyrighted works, or selling or promoting counterfeit goods or services; or
(2) is designed, operated, or marketed and used to engage in such activities. Allows the court, upon application by the relevant plaintiff, to issue temporary restraining orders or injunctions against further ISDIA activity under specified circumstances. Sets forth the preventative measures to be taken, upon being served with a court order, by:
(1) operators of nonauthoritative domain name system servers, financial transaction providers (FTPs), Internet advertising services (IASs), and information location tools (ILTs) with respect to NDNs; or
(2) FTPs and IASs with respect to domain names other than NDNs. Provides immunity from liability for:
(1) FTPs or IASs voluntarily taking certain preventative actions against ISDIAs, and
(2) domain name registries, FTPs, ILTs, or IASs withholding services from infringing sites that endanger public health by distributing prescription medication that is counterfeit, adulterated, misbranded, or without a valid prescription.

Also, from the same source you seemed to overlook the companies and organizations in support:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

"Whether or not it's "breaking the law" is still open to debate in many quarters. It's not an across the board absolute."

Part of the point is that there are many situations where certain acts are not against the law and what these new bills aim to do is to make those acts against the law. This is partly why saying, "The bill is aimed at those who break the law" is circular logic. The bill itself is law, the question is, should these laws exist.

It's almost like Congress wishing to pass a bill that bans anyone from drinking water and using the excuse, "This bill is aimed at those who break the law" as a reason to pass the bill. Before the bill, drinking water is not against the law. After the bill, it is. The bill is aimed at banning things that were previously legal. The question is, should these bans exist.

DNS !

Awesome! Protect IP is about to start the largest whack-a-mole game in history!

Bye bye DNS!

“I would be very, very careful if I were a government about arbitrarily [implementing] simple solutions to complex problems,” he said. “So, ‘let’s whack off the DNS’ (domain name systems). Okay, that seems like an appealing solution but it sets a very bad precedent because now another country will say ‘I don’t like free speech so I’ll whack off all those DNSs’ – that country would be China.”

Re: Re:

And still that number of entities that support that bill doesn't translate to numbers by the people.

Nice try though.

Add to that the American Federation of Musicians, American Federation of Radio and Television Artists, Directors Guild of America, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Screen Actors Guild, Teamsters and the AFL-CIO. Those numbers alone are in the millions. How does that translate?

Re:

Hey, great detective work Inspector Gadget. Maybe you should take the long road, Red Riding Hood. It's time to grow up, Peter Pan! You're giving up all your rights for a handful of magic beans, Jack! Careful you don't fall off your high wall, Humpty Dumpty! Are you going to cry wolf, Boy Who Cried Wolf?

Re: Re: Re: Sigh

Re: Re: Re:

"Add to that the American Federation of Musicians, American Federation of Radio and Television Artists, Directors Guild of America, International Alliance of Theatrical Stage Employees, Screen Actors Guild, Teamsters and the AFL-CIO. Those numbers alone are in the millions. How does that translate?"

ahhh... your absolutely right, the above groups have no personal interest in this Act at all and are the perfect sampling of the common American Citizen. /sarc

Re: Re: Re:

> It could be abused, so it should be feared at all costs.

Yes it should.

History shows that if a law can be abused it will be. Sometimes not in the lifetime of whoever created it, but abuse is inevitable. The period before abuse occurs is likely to be short when the law wasn't crafted by well meaning public servants, but by corporately owned corporate servants.

Of course the law probably will pass, but not because of public support there is none, is because the people doesn't count, politicians don't cater to the public they cater to their financial supporters.

This is not about the public this is about money and not surprisingly lawyers are the ones making the most donations, where do they get all that money to give away?

Those groups are spending almost a hundred million dollars in "donations" and that is what speaks volumes to congress not the support of the bill by the people, politicians don't care about the people.

Re: Re: Re:

Re:

How many police/Swat/ICE raids have there been on individuals for misdemeanor type offenses? So why then is this bill even necessary?

So please explain (if you can) why we need the police/ICE involved in these matters, since as you pointed out, if it hasn't been a problem in the past then it's obviously not necessary, right?

I mean if police haven't been raiding homes for misdemeanors then there is obviously no need to pass this law, or am I not applying your logic correctly? I'm trying but the cognitive dissonance is strong....

Re: Re: Re: Re:

@AJ:

ahhh... your absolutely right, the above groups have no personal interest in this Act at all and are the perfect sampling of the common American Citizen. /sarc

Of course they have an interest in the bill. Just as Electronic Frontier Foundation
U.S.W.G.O. and Demand Progress have an interest. The difference is that the numbers represented by those unions who support the bill swamp the numbers represented by EFF and the other two crackpot groups.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Really? I thought the EFF represented all Americans when it came to civil liberties issues, and not just a select few.

The actions of the businesses you listed would suggest they prefer the protection of their business model over my civil liberties. They are only interested in the dollar... I don't mean shit to them other than a paycheck....

Re: Re: Re: Re: Sigh

Don't get mad because you guys spend millions getting laws passed that any 12 year old with a smartphone can go around in seconds. You claim victory, but to everyone else your getting your ass handed too you. You've managed to piss off the people your trying to sell product too. It's reached the point now that their is an entire culture around hating you guys.... how exactly is this good for anyone?

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

In terms of site seizure, civil procedure requires good faith notice to the site owner.

Such notice was never given. Not once. ICE only initiated civil seizure procedures many months after the seizures occurred.

Even then, the site operators are supposed to be notified about the seizure, where they can go to contest it, and when the deadline is. None of the sites were given that information, even when they requested it. To date, not one has been given a chance to contest the seizures.

That's why Rojadirecta initiated a lawsuit against the government - which is far more difficult, costly, and time-consuming than simply contesting the seizure. They did it because they don't have any other option.

Add to that, the fact that most of the operators of the seized sites were never brought up on charges of any kind. ICE simply doesn't want these cases to go before a judge.

So, ICE's seizures are already in violation of civil seizure laws. How is it that anyone thinks the "protections" in the either this act, or PROTECT-IP, would actually protect anyone?

And this: It has nothing to do with a site that runs ads that are unrelated to the infringement.

...is patently untrue. A site that runs ads, even unrelated to the infringing content, is considered to be run for "commercial advantage or private financial gain."

Also, the "10 instances" refers to ten viewers of a single infringing stream. As for the $2500 threshold, all it takes is the claim that the contents of a YouTube video might have resulted in lost sales of $2500 - or been licensed for $5000 - and boom! you're a felon. Since copyright holders set the rates for streaming videos, they can easily claim this. Hell, considering how much industry rights holders overvalue their content, it might be true that they would have demanded this.

Make no mistake about it: this law could be easily used against YouTube users. If it was around when Lenz v. Universal Music happened, Lenz might very well have been put in jail.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

s978

Hey all,

I just came across this and wanted to tell you about how you can see what others are saying/rally support.I'm working with a company called POPVOX. POPVOX.COM POPVOX is a nonpartisan, transparent, public platform for activity on bills pending before Congress, built by a former Congressional staffer, a former advocate, and the founder of GovTrack.us. To find out more about check out https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/112/s978

Theres also a ton of info on other pending bills, your audience can get more information about the bill, find the bill’s language when it is available, see what others are saying, and share their opinion with Congress.

We also have an easy widget, if you would like to show readers a real-time opinion tally:

Re: Re: Re:

"How many people that should be affected will be affected? Probably not enough."

One person would be FAR MORE than enough. This bill is ridiculous in its nature compared to how the internet works and is another shining example of how the entitled content industry believes that they are the gatekeepers to culture in our world today. Long before the internet existed, world travelers took their culture, in the form of goods, with them and shared or traded them around the globe for things they did not have access to. The internet allows this to happen from the comfort of your own home. Those who feel the need to control the normal behavior of human beings need to be stopped by whatever means possible.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I said "represented all Americans when it came to civil liberties issues, did I not? No where in my post did I use the term "speaks". Why resort to Trolling when you don't have a good answer? Trying being a bit less disingenuous and maybe people will give your argument more consideration.

"EFF broke new ground when it was founded in 1990 — well before the Internet was on most people's radar — and continues to confront cutting-edge issues defending free speech, privacy, innovation, and consumer rights today. From the beginning, EFF has championed the public interest in every critical battle affecting digital rights."

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: IP Abolition

Re: Re: Re:

"The bill is aimed at those who intentionally and knowingly break the law for commercial gain"

Here's a nice scenario that would taken down an entire domain.

Someone has a blog and some paid ads like nearly every place has. They upload a YouTube of their kid having their birthday, and everyone is singing "Happy Birthday to you". The song is copyrighted and the entire domain can be taken down.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Such notice was never given. Not once. *** That's why Rojadirecta initiated a lawsuit against the government - which is far more difficult, costly, and time-consuming than simply contesting the seizure. They did it because they don't have any other option.

That's funny, because Rojadirecta admits that the government posted notice of the seizures two weeks after the seizures were done. Rojadirecta could have followed the procedures at that point, but they chose not to. They admitted as much.

One gets the feeling you are just making things up and seeing what you want to see.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

The first takedowns still weren't served with complaints nor court dates until six months after the seizures. Hell, there were NO court dates for the first or second round and there's still been no affidavit regarding the first takedown.

I mean, they even had a raid going on in NY for four of the people IIRC. Not only has there been no process to follow for the first 9, they had the raids occur in NY with Judge Nagel (in California!) authorizing the raids.

So there's a lot of crap that needs to be fixed here, and it's not on the side of the victims.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Buck, you were doing so well with actually trying to argue the points. Then you go and start the accusations. Why?

Are you so hard on seeing the world only one way that you can't see why all of those people are concerned? Do you get a bonus for the bill passing? Stop with the insults and keep to the arguments. You do a lot better that way.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

"A greater percentage of the population than members of EFF, Demand Progress and the utter lunatics of U.S.W.G.O."

Translation: These are the companies that want to limit competition for their own personal bottom line. We don't want Skype, Netflix or those civil liberties groups to take away our profit centers, that's why we support lobbynomics.

Re: s978

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

hat's funny, because Rojadirecta admits that the government posted notice of the seizures two weeks after the seizures were done.

"Posted notice" does not mean they sent the notice to anyone at Rojadirecta. It means they published a seizure notice on a government web site.

Let me quote directly from Rojadirecta's petition:

Contrary to the grounds on which the domain names were seized, the Rojadirecta site is not violating copyright law, let alone criminal copyright law. Rojadirecta explained this to the government when, on February 3, 2011, it sent ICE and the Department of Justice a letter requesting immediate return of the subject domain names pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 983(f). Following that letter, counsel for Puerto 80 Projects, S.L.U. (“Puerto 80” or “Petitioner”), the company which owns the sites, repeatedly tried to discuss the seizure with the government, but was unable to engage with the government until it notified the U.S. Attorney’s Office of its intent to seek a temporary restraining order and file a petition for immediate return of the seized domain names. It was not until then that Puerto 80 was able to have a substantive conversation with the appropriate officials.

This bill is more like "bull"

I see alot of problems in this bill, not to mention that IGN and Machinima, two game review/gameplay sites that I love, will probably be shut down thanks to the stupidity of our nations politicians. Thanks for nothing, Congress.

Re: DNS !

Re: Re:

Have to agree. It's getting to the point where I think that the copyright owners need a HUGE smackdown by them being told "Stop trying to limit everything to only your personal likes of usage, or we will make copyright and patents go away period!"

Count Me In

WTF?

I know I think I heard this was not going to be passed, but if it did:
1. Would they actually go around to all the 2 billion people on earth who post those videos.
2. Do they have enough jail space for 2 billion people?
3. This YouTube Comment made me laugh:
Gamer: What're you in for?
Inmate: I kidnapped 17 teenage girls, then raped and killed them. You?
Gamer: I posted videos of me playing Halo Reach on YouTube.
Inmate: WOW! You're a real sick fuck.﻿ You disgust me!

Re:

no its worse it revokes your rights to post ANY copy righted matierial through electronic means with a fine of $2,500 and up to 5 years of jail time. You cant even post a video of your cute 5 year old daughter singing lady gaga without getting in trouble by it

Re: Re:

Re: Your Trying to compare apples and hand grenades.

How many misdemeanor prosecutions have there been under the existing provision? Zero, as far as I'm aware. So why then, Chicken Little, will the sky be falling after the bill passes?

misdemeanor's are not on most prosecutors radar since they are not on most law enforcement radar; felonies on the other hand... yeah, this is being amped up because these bastards want everyone to be afraid.

simple solution is utilize local bands and free music as much as humanly possible, same with films(though a bit harder to find). I think at the end of the day, one of the things everyone seems to forget is, none of the shit they "own" is required for daily living, so boycott them, put them on their knees, make them go away by not feeding them with your wallets in the first place. Heres a decent one to start with www.jamendo.com/en/

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Typical pirate b/s spew here. I pirate a boatload of stuff, watch streams, and even streamed content for people at one point in my early twenties, but that doesn't mean I need to justify it. I know it's stealing. I know it hurts the company that owns the rights. I don't care. If I like something, I will support it. If I don't care for it I won't go out and buy merchandise just because I bootlegged the material or streamed it online.

But there is no way to justify that stealing a product is good for the company's business. It's been said for years and it's just as much b/s today than it was back when people started using Napster. It's always either "I support them in other ways" or "I sample and if I like I will buy." It's all crap. If giving Pay Per Views away was better for business the UFC would do that. It's not because that is the bulk of their revenue from their big fights. Even when collecting ad revenue on products placed around the arena and places that television viewers see, there is no calculation for the people stealing the stream. They come with numbers (Our last fight received x number of purchases and was watched by an estimated xx number of people.) When people are polled to calculate those estimations they don't poll the people who stream it.

As someone who creates entertainment I am conflicted on how I should feel. I strive to make the best content possible, so people will support it legally, but I also understand the rights of a copyright holder. It's their product and they should be free to distribute it and do with it what they please and decide whether or not to go after those who have stolen it with all of their resources. One of these days when the FBI knocks on my door for bootlegging movies I'm not going to cry foul about the punishment I get.

Did you really think we want those laws observed? said Dr. Ferris. We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be
much easier to deal with.

Question, please answer

so does this mean that if we do not make any money off of the video we make with the content, that we will not go to jail? because if it is on youtube or deviantart, i don't think you can make money off of the videos, and the only way to make money on deviantart is to sell prints. And if it is fanart, and we can tell the difference between the original copywritten picture, and the picture we drew, is that considered illegal? And if we use anything copywritten in a video, does that apply to this bill, if we still do not make any money off of it?
PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS!!!

Question, please answer

so does this mean that if we do not make any money off of the video we make with the content, that we will not go to jail? because if it is on youtube or deviantart, i don't think you can make money off of the videos, and the only way to make money on deviantart is to sell prints. And if it is fanart, and we can tell the difference between the original copywritten picture, and the picture we drew, is that considered illegal? And if we use anything copywritten in a video, does that apply to this bill, if we still do not make any money off of it?
PLEASE ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS!!!

Re: AGAINST

I agree 100% if they pass this bill that just goes to show once again the people have no voice!! I think they should let the people vote.. not people who dont care about it.....i watch videos on youtube alot for walkthroughs on games and i dont think its fair for them to take it away.

One of the big problems is that google will have to remove every such movie, and so will other sites, so even though they won't care about the average youtube user, there will be nowhere to share the clips

'the gov doesn't mean...'

Two Harvard lawyers are arguing about the 'factual aspect' of this law in other places on the web! Nevertheless, it is hoped that the viewers would be more factual.
As is wished the 'OWS' crowd would be more precise in their demands. THE SIGN SAYS "OCCUPY WALL STREET"....hmmm too ambiguous...
In a Senate hearing at which I was present, a State Police said, regarding a law that was being discussed: "You don't need to worry about that. We don't enforce it anyway."
If you don't get it, God save the Republic!